If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Could I ask what kind of retaliation from pesticide companies you've experienced, borderbeeman? Seems to me that you are very outspoken in your criticisms, and I would expect far more retribution against such a critic than against a beekeeper who alleged losses on the scale reported here.

I'm not aware that anyone took revenge on the beekeeper involved when a loss attributed to CCD and almost 20 times as large as this loss was widely reported a few years ago.

Could I ask what kind of retaliation from pesticide companies you've experienced, borderbeeman? Seems to me that you are very outspoken in your criticisms, and I would expect far more retribution against such a critic than against a beekeeper who alleged losses on the scale reported here.

I'm not aware that anyone took revenge on the beekeeper involved when a loss attributed to CCD and almost 20 times as large as this loss was widely reported a few years ago.

Personally none - apart from pointed ripostes from the company 'representatives' whose work you can see on this forum occasionally.

Dr Bonmatin in France was sued by Bayer back in 1998 (I think) because his scientific research confirmed the presence of Imidacloprid in pollen and nectar of sunflowers at a time when Bayer said this was biologically impossible. They said that his science was 'defaming their product'. The Judge found for Bonmatin and awarded costs against Bayer. Other French government scientists who confirmed that imidacloprid was killing bees at just a few ppb were suddenly taken off bee research all together, their careers were derailed, they were effectively 'blackballed' for telling the truth.

Please watch this video documentary, it has good English subtitles - and the pictures of dying bees are worth a thousand stories.

It deals with the disaster which struck the French beekeeping industry as far back as 1994 - when over 400,000 colonies a year were killed following the introduction of the systemic neurotoxin Imidacloprid/ 'Gaucho' for use on sunflowers and maize.

What the film reveals is the fact that pbeekeepers were lied to from the outset, about the effect of this pesticide for bees and other pollinators. It shows how the science was ignored, corrupted, distorted and buried for over ten years - and how any scientist who dared to stand up for the truth was threatened, intimidated, bullied, transferred . .. .careers were ruined, people's lives were seriously damaged.

Please don't view this as an attack, borderbeeman, but, first, your lack of retaliation makes your friend seem a bit paranoid, and, secondly, if I related such details to you in confidence and learned that you had posted them publicly (even if "anonymously"), I would feel that you had violated the trust of friendship.

I can support Mr. Palmer's observations. We also have alot of corn planted around our hives(to male ethanol), and see no correlation between corn and sick bees. We did loose 90 percent of our hives in 2005 and 2006, until we sterilized or replace them with new bees and new equipment.

To the OP, can you telll me if any of your friend's hives are painted silver(aluminum paint)? If so, what are they branded? In 2006 there was a batch of silver equipment sold in the Midwest that was contaminated with pathogens.

Please don't view this as an attack, borderbeeman, but, first, your lack of retaliation makes your friend seem a bit paranoid, and, secondly, if I related such details to you in confidence and learned that you had posted them publicly (even if "anonymously"), I would feel that you had violated the trust of friendship.

I assure you that everything in my OP was posted with the full consent and agreement of my bee-farming friend.
he is not paranoid, in fact he is one of the most calm and well balanced people I have ever spoken with. He did not send me his original observations 'in confidence' - he sent them with the express intention of getting them out to the widest audience possible. He will be doing more in the near future - via his own public efforts.

As to 'paranoia' - I think you can see by the 'froth on the mouth' attacks of some people posting here, that other interests are determined to suppress any discussion of systemic pesticides as the cause of the greatest bee-disaster in American history. A disaster which is 'ongoing'. I see no signs - apart from the actions of the National Honey Board and a very small number of individual beekeepers, that there is ANY organised response to the current bee-disaster, on the part of the 'official' beekeeping bodies. We are no further forward in actually opposing and stopping the obvious cause of this bee-killing pandemic than we were in 2000AD. There is an obvious reason why we are no further forward; because it is not in the interests of the pesticide companies that you should be allowed to make progress. They are making $billions annually, and American beekeepers are paying the bill in dead bees.

The French however, ARE further down the road, they BANNED the use of neonics on bee-related crops in 2000AD and - though they lost 1 million hives before the ban, they have seen nothing like that since the ban. Ditto for Germany, Italy, Slovenia . . .etc.

It deals with the disaster which struck the French beekeeping industry as far back as 1994 - when over 400,000 colonies a year were killed following the introduction of the systemic neurotoxin Imidacloprid/ 'Gaucho' for use on sunflowers and maize. -borderbeeman

The French however, ARE further down the road, they BANNED the use of neonics on bee-related crops in 2000AD and - though they lost 1 million hives before the ban, they have seen nothing like that since the ban. -borderbeeman

From some more recent figures, I'm not sure that losses have changed much.

CCD appeared in France in the period 1994-97; over a million colonies were lost when imidacloprid was introduced as a seed treatment for sunflowers, which was the main honey-crop in most regions.
Please see this report here, it makes fascinating reading - to see this all happened so long ago in Europe - but is still happening in UK and USA.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of pesticides. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency here. The report I linked does a nice job of outlining a number of stresses on managed honeybees.

I'm not sure that commercial beekeepers in Europe are migratory like most of the big operations in the U.S. are. Moving hives hundreds or even thousands of miles adds still more stress on the bees.
Then why the secrecy? Why not put your name on the article as the author and cite the source by name?

Migratory beekeeping is practised in France but within regions, rather than cross-country. Bee-farming is big business in France, unlike the UK where it is largely hobbyists. French bee-farmers organise themselves around Co-ops - with each town havig centralised honey extraction and bottling plant - and equipment and suchlike being group-purchased. Since neonics came in, they say they have to move their bees to the forests, the hills, the untreated crops - anywhere to keep them away from the pesticides. They are lucky in that France is a really big country, twice the area of the UK and still has very large stands of broadleaved forests (29% of France is forested, as opposed to 12% of the UK).

I was in the Dordogne two years ago and in the town market at Riberac I bought honey from a local producer.
She had 'specialist' - unifloral honeys including: sunflower, lavender, chestnut and lime tree, as well as 'flowers of the forest'. I have never seen such a display in the UK. She said her bees were doing really well and she had no colony losses to speak of.

As to my friend's 'anonymity' - he just has too much to deal with at present. He was waiting for the EPA team to arrive this weekend when I spoke to him, to take samples of dead hives, pollen, bees etc. I did pass on the questions about his treatment of his bees: feeding, varroa treatment etc. He said, "after thirty years as a migratory beekeepr I think I know how to feed bees, treat for varroa and carry out inspections". He said to pass on that he has been 'deeply involved' with some of the bee-research teams over the last six or seven years and his hives have been sampled for pollen residues 'numerous times'.

So the colonies were strong in November, after going through a massive drought in the mid-West this past summer. And the bees crashed by mid-winter due to neonics? Sounds about right except the neonic part.

How about an alternative explanation that seems to me much more credible. Colonies under drought conditions can't raise winter bees, and populous colonies of old bees don't survive the winter.

That would be my guess as well... from my perspective of the 2012 season here in MO. Some queens just stopped laying during the string of 100+ days. Spring was great, but it was a tough summer, particularly for weak colonies.

Ironically statements like this (regardless of the issue) are a huge red flag that imply that the 'answer' accepted by one person is good enough for 'many'.

This stuff only confuses the issue.

Whaddup Scott? You are pulling out 1 line from over 70 posts ago without reference to context? I have decided a much better use of my time and beekeeping experience can be spent talking about actual beekeeping and not debating nuances with the folks that clutter up the forum with this stuff. But to save the folks all the detective work my response was in post #63 to post #62 which was a discussion of the far left environmental movement's methods as made by some of the most respected bee authorities on bee list including Mike Palmer (though he would have to confirm for us if he shares my sentiments on this issue), hardly an answer accepted by only myself if I dare say. I would encourage people to read it and decide for themselves. In the meantime I'm outta here! this silliness has run its course.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Nothing personal Jim. My point remains the same, but you just got stuck with the hot potato.

I think the topic is worthy and not clutter, more mainstream than you might think rather than far left and certainly testing the stored pollen would be of great importance.

For what its worth, as I will most likely just get accused of being an "industry shill" I received test results taken by the state of South Dakota on pollen samples taken from my bees. They showed no detectable levels of any neonics. Also no detectable levels of any miticides. My bees continue to look great and I have at least as many hives as the person that this whole discussion centers around. Hmmmmm.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

I hear some many contradictions on this stuff it's borderline hilarious. Neonics kill then they're undetectable, but yet they're stable in the environment and detectable for years after planting according to others... France banned neonics... usually the opinion is it did not improve much and they're thinking of lifting the ban, but those who oppose neonics with no abandon say the ban was the best thing since sliced bread.... My opinion, when I watch the documentaries and see all the pics of CCD hives, one things always strikes me, they look very 'used', almost filthy which is why when Roland says his problems were solved by 'sterilizing' their stuff and getting new bees/equipment a little light bulb goes off in my head.

I thought I saw silver boxes in the pictures. There where a batch of silver boxes purchased from Wisconsin that where KNOWN to have CCD, so I repeat, since I did not see any GREEN boxes in the pictures, where there any brands on the old equipment that is diseased?

It would be nice to see some facts rather than the conjecture and wishful thinking that was in the op. if so many colonies died, any sensible bee farmer would want to know why. I would have thought that scientific evidence would be plain to see. It might be anti-fungals and not neonics. To me the 'third party' article was somewhat biased and guessing was offered as fact.